RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1279, 1 June 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before Messrs Brennan and Potts. J.P's) Thursday, May 31st, 1883. Foul Chimney. Charles Mirfin was charged with permitting a foul chimney to catch fire. The, charge was denied. ' Constable McMan us stated that at 1 p.m. on the morning of Thursday last, his attention was attracted py a.gjgre ;oj| light in tU«,direc<^^ v^Dp^f*BroWw^^ Thifffire-bell; and a crowd collected at defenlwit's house, when the chimney : waa found to be on fire and DeTendant said" that a kerosene lamp^ had exploded in the room, and was thrown into the fireplace causing a large body of flame to rush up the chimney. He denied that the chimney was at all foul. Fined 10s and costs. Larceny. Alexander Colquhon was charged upon the information of James Barrowman with having on the 16th instant, at Reefton feloniously stolen and carried away a rooster of the value of £1, the property of the informant. Mr Lynch appeared for the defendant Mr Barrowman applied to amend the information, by the addition of the words " and also one Spanish hen, the property of this informant." My Lynch opposed the amendment, which was, however, eventually allowed, and the case proceeded. Sergeant Neville conducted the case for the police. James Barrowman : I know defendant : on the 10th instant I missed a rooster from my premises : I searched the fowlhouse, and the neighborhood, but could find no trace of the bird : on returning to the fowl-house I saw some feathers neat the door, and examining them I found they belonged to the missing rooster, and concluded the bird had been stolen. I had seen the rooster on the previous evening at my place. I then reported the matter to the police. I was engaged at the Court at the time and could not then follow up the search till shortly after 1 p.m., when I went straight down to McGaffin's Hotel and saw Mr McGaffin. I told him the object of my visit and he went with me to the back of the premises. I- there saw Mrs Webb, the cook, and asked her to show me the fowls she had bought from Colquhon. She pointed to five! dressed fowls in a dish and said they were the ones. She said the heads and feet were in the bucket. Searched, the bucket and found the two feet which I at once indentified as belonging to my rooster. Could not r"nd the head, but in searching I found the head of a hen which I also indentitied as belonging to another of my fowls. Found four heads in the bucket, but could find no trace of the fifth : She said defendant had brought the fowls to her that morning I can indentify the feet by certain marks upon them, and also by their general appearance. Owing to the length of time which has elapsed the marks are somewhat obliterated. I produce the feet and swear they are the ones obtained by me from the bucket and belonged to my rooster. I asked Mrs Webb for accused and she said she did not know where he was but that he had been there a few minutes previously. Looked for accused again that night, but could not find him. Went next morning with a witness to Woolley's farm and saw defendant there. Asked accused where he had got the fowls and he said he bought two from Mrs Molloy and two from Mrs McLean. Asked him where he got the rooster and fie hesitated for some little time and then 3aid he got it on the road. Asked him where, and he said if I wonld believe him lie would tell me the whole truth. He then said that the dog had brought it to him, and that the dog was in the habit of killing fowls. He said he thought it was nay bird, but the dog was not his. He naid it happened early in the morning, before 9 o'clock when he was on his way :rt McGaffin's with the milk, and that the 'owl was perfectly dead. He admitted :hat the fowl was mine. Saw no teeth narks on the fowl which was then trussed. Hie head I found in the bucket was that )f a Spanish hen with a very large comb rhat night the hen was missing. Cross-examined : I was at home l>eween 8 and 9 o'clock on the morning roerred to, am certain both .the rooster and ion were at my place on the previous svening, have no doubt as t<> the identity if the hen's head. There are some liunIreds of fowls in Reef ton, but could dentify mine. By the Bench : I swear positively to the :lentification of the foet. Sarah Jane Webb: Am cook at icGatKn's Hotel, on the 16th instant ccused brought five fowls to me, and hey were afterwards cleaned and cooked. Jould not describe them. Don't think liey were all roosters. Recollect Mr iarrowuian calling, told him that I had ought the fowls from accused. Defenant, myself and an assistant plucked the irds, accased did not say where he got ie fowls, but said he had paid 12s for tur. Think the nocks had been wrung.

Barrowman found two feet in the bucket and said they belonged to his rooster. Don't recollect ■ Ills saying anything about a hen's head. We could not find the head of the rooster. Defendant had been in the kitchen a few minutes previously. It was 10 or 11 o'clock when accused brought the fowls. Me brings the milk about 8 o'clock, asked him when he brought the milk about the- fowlsy and he said he would try and get some; We finished plucking the fowls about 1 o'clock. Do not know whether defendant brought any fowls when lie came with the milk. Asked him whether he had brought any andhesajd " No, " but that he would go and see. Have had! conversation with accused about the case, and also with Mr McGaffin. Am not aware that Mr Barrowman recognised anything but the rooster's feet. By Mr Lynch t Defendant only brought five fowls in, and he has been paid lite for four of them. Mary Molloy was called, and proved that defendant called fhfc^'tfiMf a^^|l o'clock on thg^ay^in^isfion^hi A "purwhased two punets, paying 6s 6d for them, inly havflaid that it was abi%t 2 o'clock when defendant caljedl Defendant asked her on the following day whether she had been summoned and she said no, but re- v a^m|mosi^terJn the^^y^^Baja not v s > e^3> accusecr since "BHe 1 Jmtt fc r > el^^H| the summons. I By Mr Lynch : The two pullets were of J a common breed ; they were not Spanish, [ and had no combs. B. Rumble was called, and corroborated the prosecutor's evidence as to the conversation which took place at Wooiey's farm on the 17th instant. Accused admitted the dog had brought the rooster to him from near Barrowman's fence, and said he was not sure, but he thought the bird belonged to Barrowman. Did not Bee the dog kill the rooster in question, met accused out shooting one day, and He (accused) had the dog with him. They were at O'Gradv's farm, and the dog went after a fowl and killed it, fowls killed by dogs usually show the marks after being cooked ; a fowl killed by a dog and a fowl killed by wringing its neck would not hay« the same appearance after being cooked. The former would show teeth marks or bruises about the body. By Mr Lynch : A fowl chased by a dog would make a noise. Don't think a fowl could be killed by a dog without showing teeth marks or bruises. Re-examined : When the fowl was killed by the dog at O'Grady's, there wob a great noise. I avania M'Lean was called, and proved having sold accused two black hens, and received 3s. This was at half-past 9 o'clock in the morning. They were black Spanish hens, and were laying. Wanted 3s each for them, and he said McGaffiu would only give 2s Gd. This closed the case. For the defence no evidence waß called. Mr Lynch then addressed the Court. He contended that there was not a tittle of evidence as to the second allegation in the information As to the first, he admitted that the rooster belonged to Mr Barrowman, and also, that it had been killed by the dog in the manner stated. The facts were that defendant was on his way to McGaffin's Hotel with milk, when the dog came running up to him with the bird, which was then quite dead Defendant knew that the fowl was Barrowman's, but had not the courage to go and tell the owner, aa he undoubtedly should have done, of the mishap, but foolishly thought to make away with the fowl. In this no doubt he had acted very foolishly, and given the case a very much worse complexion than it would otherwise have borne. He could assure the Court, however, that his client had had no intention of profiting by the mishap, for he had made no charge to McGaffin for the fowl. In cases of larceny proof that an accused committed the act for motives of profit was a necessary ingredient in the offence, and this was wholly wanting in the present instance. He would admit that defendant had acted very indiscreetly, and for which he had been sufficiently punished, by being placed in his present position He would call evidence as to defendant's character. John Alexander, M. R. Gissing, and Robert Patterson, were called, and testified that as far as they knew, defendant bore a good character. The former stating that on the morning in question, accused told him that the dog had killed the fowl, and that he. (defendant) intended to destroy the dog, and this had since been done. The Bench held that although the evidence showed the accused had acted very foolishly in the matter, and exposed/ himself unpleasantly, there was no sufficient proof of the larcenous intention. The informatiom would therefore be dealt with under the 194 th section of " The Justices of the Peace Act, 1882," which gave [mwer to dismiss the charge, and order the restitution of the property Defendant was therefore ordered to pay the sum of £1, the value of the fowl lestroyed, together with the costs of the ;as(i The court then adjourned.